On Sun, Jan 3, 2010 at 10:14 PM, Guangcong Luo <[email protected]> wrote: > I really dislike this idea, because there are many upgrades that > campaign does benefit from, as much as skirmish - the new keyboard > shortcuts, such as 's', alt+click, etc, for example. The build > previews, for another. The terrain renderer, for another.
Most of the patches that benefit campaign are small and easily backported (terrain renderer notably excepted - but I'm not sure it should be backported). I think we should take a conservative approach to changes to the original campaign, and minimize the changes. Not just to reduce the work load on us, but also to keep it the way it was. > As for the skirmish-only stuff, most of them couldn't ever cause a > problem in campaign. That is what we keep thinking, and yet about every release we get new campaign bugs. Those are always the bugs that are found last and fixed even later. > message.c is used in skirmish, anyway, and we use parts of mission.c > and transporter.c. Those are very tiny parts of message.c and somewhat larger parts of transporter.c. I can't think of anything from mission.c that is used in skirmish. > The campaign scripts theoretically aren't a > problem, as long as we keep everything backwards-compatible. Which is a real pain for savegames. Once get serious about reworking the scripting system, that will be fun too (not). Also future movement changes can subtly break scripts that depend on old behaviour to get units where the scripts expect them to be. > Splitting the code off is going to be a problem, since that'll just be > another branch to maintain. :/ And we will have to maintain it... Yes, we will, but since there should be very few changes in it, we just have to make sure it continues to run. That should not be too hard. What is hard is what we have now. - Per _______________________________________________ Warzone-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
